Ker-triage! And Creatures.

Rules questions, suggestions, and discussion

Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman

Re: Ker-triage! And Creatures.

Postby stubby » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:19 pm

Alternately: for each limb, device, or part grafted, the Biomechanik rolls once on the Ker-Frankenstein table. Same as the Medik, a properly equipped Biomechanik rolls 1d8, an improperply equipped one rolls 1d6, and each assistant increases the die by one size up to 1d12.

1 The creature turns on its creators.
2-4 Something goes wrong. Roll for results.
5+ The part is attached successfully.
User avatar
Psy.D Manchild Psychology, U. of Wikipedia
Posts: 4979
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: Ker-triage! And Creatures.

Postby pkbrennan » Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:21 pm

I like the latest idea best for a Ker-Frankenstein! table.

As for the "Something goes Awry" subtable, it should only have a handful of options to keep it slim and not slow down the game much at all. I am thinking four or five at most.

1. (critical failure) It runs off and joins the other team (opposing player now takes control of that unit until the end of the game or until it is killed)
2. The brain used was "Abby Normal's". It has a half-mind and is submissive, as per horses...
3. Something went wrong with its dexterity. Skill becomes 1d6-1
4. Something went wrong with its speed. -1 Move (so 4" instead of 5")

K.I.S.S. is the order of the day, here.
The World of Pekab & the Anarcho-Syndicalist Adventurers Guild <== new site

"Everything needs more Dakka, including the Dakka..."
User avatar
Cannon Fodder
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:54 am

Re: Ker-triage! And Creatures.

Postby Voin » Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:18 am

Rev. Sylvanus wrote:Nah, just leave that to Mechaniks with their field construction ability. Useful for reconstructing the parts of multiple fallen creatures and minifigs into something bigger and meaner. For suggestions on how to accomplish this, see dirtycajun in this battle.

That battle was great! :D

Gungnir wrote:Solution: Steroids. Inject some liquid OT or something into a creature's veins, and it'll be good to go.

You know where I can get some of that for recreational purposes um, a science experiment?

aoffan23 wrote:I personally think it seems a little overkill to give a single minifig both powers. If he's a hero with a biomechanical expert cliche or something, then sure. But for a regular minifig to have both would be a little too much, at least in my opinion.

I've noticed a lot of people seem to think that it's OP to give a single fig multiple specialties, but I respectfully disagree. Here's why:
6) For active abilities, unless you also gave the fig multitasking (which may be OP for all but the most exotic of multibrained or esoterikally-trained figs), it can sill only do 1 action in a turn. A separate Mechanik and separate Medik can do both a Construction Action and attempt Ker-Triage within the same round because they're two separate figs. A Med-chanik can only do one.

7) Putting all your eggs in one basket: If I have a team composed of a Medik, a Mechanik, a Scout, a Gunner, a Pilot, and a Heavy, that's 6 different figs that I have out on the battlefield doing stuff. If one of them gets splattered, oh well, that sucks, but I still have 5 more to bring the pain. If I cram all those specialties together into one super-soldier, yes, he's cheaper in terms of CP, and yes, he's more versatile for handling various situations, but he's still a size-1" fig, and if he gets ker-splopded, there goes my 1-man army.

8) A single fig (even with multitasking) can only be in one place at a time. Even if you were to try to stat out Dr. Manhattan, with a 16" superhero move speed (the upper limit), multitasking, multidexterity (for slipping Silk Spectre II his blue glowy schlong while fixing a particle reactor), and whatever other crap you wanted to cram in his glowing blue ass, he'd still only be able to accomplish less than a bunch of 1-trick penises all separately doing their things.

stubby wrote:I believe in memetic Darwinism. Who has more cultural traction in today's audience - the original literary Frankenstein, or the movie version with Igor? For that matter, when you say "Frankenstein," how many people think of the doctor, and how many think of the monster? The solitary version of Doctor Frankenstein was fine for his day, but he is no longer relevant to ours. There's something about mad scientists with assistants that is much more compelling to our modern culture than mad scientists by themselves.

Didn't the monster say something about "taking on his father's name" toward the end? So it would be appropriate to refer to both the creature and the Doctor as "Frankenstein". (Just remember, that one of them went to Mad Medical School, and will appreciate being referred to as "Dr.")

Also, if by memetic Darwinism you mean what I think you mean, then I'd have to raise issue with a lot of the "adaptations" being dummied down or the adapters not even bothering to read the source material. For example, it does nobody any good to portray Watson as a bumbling sidekick. Watson was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, was pretty much as smart as Holmes (albeit in different fields), and kicked serious ass alongside Holmes. And the portrayals by Jude Law and Martin Freeman bring back badass Watson, rather than continue slogging along with the lame Watson that was unfortunately ingrained in the public subconscious through decades of half-assed adaptations.

Memetic Darwinism is fine if it makes us picture Batman as the dark, kickass Nolan version, rather than the campy old 60s TV one (or worse yet, Schumaker's Bat-nipples version), but if it takes a character or concept that was originally awesome (like vampires) and waters it down to some unrecognizable sparkly-fairy, effeminite-goth, wants-to-have-sex-with-you-but-cannot-becuase-teenage-angst bullshit, then it's a load of crap and need to be culturally rejected.
User avatar
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:31 pm


Return to The Rulebook

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ikensall, Voin and 2 guests